International Journal on Criminology Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 40

What recent property crime trends in Western Europe tells us about the crime drop
In 2012, Van Dijk had the results of the 2010 ICVS survey at his disposal. He
could compare them with the 2005 results for six countries: Germany, England and
Wales, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden. It allowed him to study the
trends in burglary rates as a function of the data on the level of security equipment to
verify the hypotheses of his responsive securitization theory:
The litmus test of the impact of responsive securitization on burglary rates is
whether local or national trends in rates of victimization by burglary can be
predicted by the penetration rate of security measures. In other words, are
countries with a higher penetration of household security rewarded by lower
burglary rates in the years ahead? The repeat of the ICVS in 2010 allows us to
explore this issue empirically (Van Dijk 2012, 28).
Responsive securitization can be broken down into four stages:
• increase in the frequency of a type of theft, especially when valuable goods
are poorly protected;
• recognition of the existence of increased risk;
• implementation of protective measures against theft;
• decline in its frequency by reducing opportunities.
Van Dijk used different statistics taken from ICVS to determine the stage that
each country had reached, for example, in terms of recognition or security devices
equipped:
In countries such as England/Wales, Canada, and Germany more people are
concerned about their risks and more people have installed security. In Sweden
and especially Denmark, the population seems less concerned and less inclined
to take precautionary measures (Van Dijk 2012, 28–29).
Then he compared the changes measured between the 2005 (based on 2004) and
the 2010 ICVS:
If we look subsequently at the trends in burglary victimization between 2004
and 2010, a divergent pattern emerges. In England/Wales, the Netherlands,
and Canada rates have fallen, in Germany and Sweden rates remained stable,
and in Denmark they went up (Van Dijk 2012, 29).
England and Wales were situated at the end of the responsive securitization cycle,
with a strong drop in victimization rates in 2010, while the level of security equipment
and the perceived risk of burglaries were high in 2004.
On the opposite end, in Denmark, while victimization rates increased in 2010,
the risk was seen as small in 2004 and few security measures were taken. These elements,
which reinforce the responsive securitization model, are nonetheless seen by Van Dijk as
being “no definite proof” (Van Dijk 2012, 30).
39